Natural justice in excise appeals requires deciding the stay petition first before dismissing for pre-deposit non-compliance.

Delay in filing the appeal was condoned where the appellant showed bona fide belief that the appellate order could be recalled, acted promptly, and had not been informed that no review lay. The dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement was also set aside because the stay petition had not been decided first. The Tribunal held that the stay application should be considered along with the merits and the appellant's financial position, and that personal hearing should be given before any fresh stay order is passed. The matter was remanded for fresh decision on the stay petition and then on the appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal deserved condonation. (ii) Whether the order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, without first deciding the stay petition, should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The delay was explained by the appellant's bona fide belief that the appellate order, having been passed without adjudication on merits and without deciding the stay petition, could be recalled and considered afresh. The appellant had also acted promptly in pursuing the matter, and the office of the Commissioner had not clarified that no review lay against the order. These circumstances were treated as sufficient cause for the delay.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, without first deciding the stay petition, should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The appeal had been dismissed without a decision on merits and without first disposing of the stay petition. The Tribunal held that the stay petition should be considered first, along with the merits and the financial position of the appellant, and that the appellant must be given an opportunity of personal hearing before a fresh order on stay is passed.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision on the stay petition and thereafter on the appeal.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained relief by condonation of delay and remand of the matter for reconsideration, with the appellate order set aside because the stay petition had not been decided before dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal is dismissed for non-compliance without deciding the stay petition and the surrounding circumstances show a bona fide and prompt pursuit of remedy, delay may be condoned and the matter remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with natural justice.

---